Oh Texas, I'm not surprised anymore, just disappointed.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Cant we just let texas secede from the union?

I think you mean will Texas allow the rest of the country to leave. They are Rorschach and we are the other inmates.

**whembly**

I just read the bill... again... really?

It's a bill that limits abortions to 20 weeks and forced clinics to meet the same requirements as any other out-patient surgical center in a state.

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
whembly wrote:
meh... we're complaining about banning it after 20 weeks? o.O

Isn't that right inline with most European countries? (20-24 weeks?)

No, we're complaining about a cynical piece of legislation designed to close down around 40 clinics in Texas, thus easing in a total ban.

Total ban? That's not what it's going on here...

It's closing down the clinics and moving those 20 weeks or less abortions to actual surgery centers. You know, those centers that are regulated for safety.

What is the rate of problems associated with the current clinics?

**whembly**

Doesn't matter, it wasn't signed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_RESTRICTIONS_TEXAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-26-06-42-21

**daedalus**

Ahtman wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Cant we just let texas secede from the union?

I think you mean will Texas allow the rest of the country to leave. They are Rorschach and we are the other inmates.

That's... actually probably the best way to explain it I think I've ever heard.

**Gitkikka**

Good job, protestors. Wish I could have been there with you.

**Easy E**

I heard a report this mornign that a filibuster left the bill unpassed, and that the Texas house ended their session. Then, here I read it was passed after midnight.

Can someone tell me what actually happened?

**whembly**

Easy E wrote:
I heard a report this mornign that a filibuster left the bill unpassed, and that the Texas house ended their session. Then, here I read it was passed after midnight.

Can someone tell me what actually happened?

It passed, but it wasn't signed in time.

**hotsauceman1**

So it wasnt signed, so it cannot become law?

**whembly**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So it wasnt signed, so it cannot become law?

Correct... unless, they call for extended session.

**Gitkikka**

whembly wrote:
Doesn't matter, it wasn't signed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_RESTRICTIONS_TEXAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-26-06-42-21

Did none of you read this?

Too caught up in the "Texas should succeed, hur hur" moment I guess.

Whembly excluded, of course.

**Jihadin**

Still waiting on Northern Colorado to be formed as the "51st" state.....

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
Still waiting on Northern Colorado to be formed as the "51st" state.....

They're still talking about that...

KK... what's in the water there?

**KalashnikovMarine**

Speaking of being disappointed in Texas: http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/stay-classy-haters-fort-worth-tx-office-of-wendy-davis-firebombed/

**d-usa**

If you can't do your job in time, I guess just call for some OT:

Perry renews Texas abortion battle with special session

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
If you can't do your job in time, I guess just call for some OT:

Perry renews Texas abortion battle with special session

Dang...

Get out the popcorn next week... it's gonna be interesting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT:

62% of Texan supports the 20 week ban...

**Fafnir**

It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.

**whembly**

Fafnir wrote:
It's not the 20 week ban that people are upset about, it's the proposed closing of almost every abortion facility in Texas that is the problem.

No... it's forcing them to the same standards that current outpatient surgery facilities must follow.

If the clinic would follow that, they'd be fine.

**Fafnir**

Which would require almost all of those facilities to close, since they don't receive the funding that would allow that.

And it's not like abortions require outpatient surgery facility tech in the first place.

**Mannahnin**

Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.

**Fafnir**

It would be akin to requiring all optometrist's and dentist's offices that aren't equipped for full outpatient surgery to close.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23074659

The governor of Texas has called a special legislative session in an attempt to pass an anti-abortion law blocked when a Democratic senator undertook a marathon delaying speech.

Republican Rick Perry ordered lawmakers to return on 1 July.

Senator Wendy Davis spoke for more than 10 hours on Tuesday, blocking Republicans from banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Republicans ran out of time when the legislative session ended at midnight.

The bill, opposed by many Democrats, who hold a minority in the legislature, would also require all pregnancy terminations to take place in specially-equipped surgical centres, effectively closing most of the state's abortion clinics.

Decorum 'breakdown'

"Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state," Mr Perry said in a statement on Wednesday.

"We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do."

Mr Perry said the special session would take up three pieces of legislation, including the abortion bill.

During her extended delaying speech on Tuesday, which is known in US political parlance as a filibuster, Sen Davis read testimony and messages from women and others opposing the legislation as she remained standing without any breaks.

Sen Davis was picked to lead the filibuster because she had her first child as a teenager and went on to graduate from Harvard Law School.

"I was a poor, uninsured woman, whose only care was provided through that facility. It was my medical home," said Sen Davis, 50.

Texas Lt Governor David Dewhurst, who is Senate president, eventually suspended the filibuster after ruling that she had gone off topic. Democrats appealed, sparking a debate over parliamentary rules.

State restrictions

As the clock ticked to midnight, Republicans rushed to hold a vote on the bill, amid jeers from pro-abortion rights protesters in the public gallery

But amid the disruption, Lt Gov Dewhurst said he had been unable to sign the bill within the deadline following a 19-10 vote. He blamed an "unruly mob" in the gallery.

Supporters of the bill say the measures will improve safety standards. It requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics would remain in operation if the law passes, and opponents say this will force women to travel hundreds of miles or resort to dangerous methods to obtain the procedure.

The US Supreme Court legalised abortion nationwide in 1973, but about a dozen conservative states have enacted laws in recent years that seek to limit the procedure.

In March, North Dakota banned abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected - as early as six weeks - in the most restrictive law of its kind in the US.

**Ahtman**

When a majority of people agree with you then it is a fringe element stopping the will of the people.

When the majority of people disagree with you then you are fighting the tyranny of the majority.

**Frazzled**

Fafnir wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/25/texas-abortion-speech/2458063/

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans have passed new abortion restrictions expected to close almost every abortion clinic in the second most populous U.S. state.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted for the bill while hundreds of protesters screamed from the gallery. Reporters and Democrats saw the voting begin after midnight, but Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said it began just before.

Texas' special legislative session ended at midnight, and Democrats spent most of the day using procedural maneuvers to delay a final vote on the bill. Republicans cited rules to eventually force a vote on the legislation.

The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires that all procedures take place in a surgical center.

Doctors who perform abortions would also need admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The surgical center requirement would shut down 37 of Texas' 42 abortion clinics.

Actually it just failed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
Fallen668 wrote:
As a Texan, I am hoping that this will be the shot heard around the state to mobilize to voters to finally kick out of office the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers or whatever else label they want to use to describe themselves this week.

As a quick aside, Libertarians would be against this, as they generally don't want government involved in much of anything, and would see it as Government meddling. Directly from their party platform:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Agreed. As a Libertarian I am against this.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Cant we just let texas secede from the union?

OK! Keep your national debt you dern ferenner Amerikun!

**whembly**

Mannahnin wrote:
Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.

Where's the evidence that these clinic would shut down?

I'm not seeing it.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So it wasnt signed, so it cannot become law?

Exactly. Can we still secede though? We'll keep all the refineries...

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So it wasnt signed, so it cannot become law?

Exactly. Can we still secede though? We'll keep all the refineries...

At least leave the Queso.

**MrMoustaffa**

So let me get this straight.

When "Republicans" use delaying tactics, that's a horrible affront to freedom. But when "Democrats" do it, its a victory.

When "conservatives" complain that introducing more restrictive laws are designed to snuff out a right over time, they're called paranoid. But when "liberals" say it, they're justified.

Does anyone not see the irony here?

We all want the government to mind its own business and leave us alone.

I'm glad the abortion rights activists won a victory here, even if I'm not too big on the idea of abortion. I just wish they would realize that these tactics that they used for a "victory of womens rights" is almost identical to the tactics other groups have been damned for using when they succeeded as well. Watching Americans literally at each others' throats over idiotic labels (notice the quotes yet?) is getting ridiculous. Its long past funny and is just getting sad at this point. This incident (and some of the comments in this thread) highlight just how incredibly stupid the party divide has become in the USA. Both sides demonize the other over the most trivial of issues, and if you dare to disagree (a "conservative" who is ok with gay marriage, a "liberal" who wants more strict immigration laws) you're considered a traitor. The media spins it however they feel will get them views, and next thing you know, something that should be "common sense" is blown massively out of proportion.

Its a miracle our government even functions right now. What with both sides at each others throats, and the slightest notion of a compromise causes a lynch mob to form against those who "betrayed" their party.

EDIT: For the record, I can't stand either the Democrat and the Republican parties. Both parties are almost completely corrupt at this point. I'm trying to make the point that both sides are as crazy as the other, yet refuse to believe it.

**MrDwhitey**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
So let me get this straight.

When "Republicans" use delaying tactics, that's a horrible affront to freedom. But when "Democrats" do it, its a victory.

When "conservatives" complain that introducing more restrictive laws are designed to snuff out a right over time, they're called paranoid. But when "liberals" say it, they're justified.

Only in some bizarro world idiots believe in.

**Mannahnin**

False equivalencies are dangerous. But it's certainly true that some folks are hypocritical, and that campaign organizations are good at spinning events and demonizing opponents. It's as important to apply critical evaluation to the claims made by the folks (ostensibly) on "your side" as to the folks on the other side of the aisle.

whembly wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Right. There is no documentation showing that any such increased requirements are in any way needed for these facilities. It's a restriction designed purely to shut down the vast majority of centers, which will not financially be able to meet the requirements. A de-facto shutdown order on most of the clinics in the state, disguised as a regulatory change.

Where's the evidence that these clinic would shut down?

I'm not seeing it.

Then you didn't read the quotes from the people who run them.